Josiah Concept Ministries

I have already dedicated one post to debunking the statistics associated with the Jesus Family Tomb. I’m happy to report that mathematicians are also responding to those numbers in far greater detail than I was able to. It’s also nice to see that I remember enough from my Business Statistics class five years ago to raise similar doubts to the experts in the field.

Dr. Joe Mello has written a response to Dr. Andrey Feuerverger’s calculations here.

Download the PDF.

The Discovery Channel’s documentary on the Jesus Tomb aired this evening. Over the next few days, I will be making a series of posts in response to this documentary. The first will focus on the family names that appear in the tomb. The second will discuss the specific name that is the center of their argument: Mariamne, and why they suppose that it is Mary Magdalene. The third will discuss the implications of the patina evidence pulled from the James ossuary.

Finally, if enough interest exists, I will exapand and edit these posts into an e-book, which will be for sale at a modest price. If little interest seems to exist, I will still combine them into an article and post it on my articles page. I am also collecting links to other sites that refute the Jesus Tomb, and will be posting these by the Da Vinci Code refutation sites and the Blasphemy Challenge answer sites.

The first issue that the documentary touches on is the names that appear within the tomb on the inscribed ossuaries. The statement that Jesus son of Joseph, Mary, and Jose (a nickname for Joseph) appearing individually would be nothing of significance. However, seeing all of these names together in the same tomb increases the liklihood that this is Jesus’ family, since according to the gospels His family all had these names.

The film does its best to stick to the sensational, rather than the facts. As the best surviving historical records from the time of Christ, the gospels cannot be discounted, ignored, or left out. To their credit, the film uses the gospels whenever it helps them out, as it does with the name Jose. Indeed, according to Mark 6:3, Jose (or Joses) is one of Jesus’ brothers.

Another ossuary carries the bones of Matia, or Matthew. Nowhere in the gospels is a Matthew referenced as the brother of Jesus. However, in the geneology of Luke 3:23-38, several Matthews (or variants of the name) are noted in the line. The film says that this is Mary’s lineage, and that since the ancestral name “Matthew” was prominent it is therefore likely that she named a son Matthew.

The gospel accounts do not bear this out. As indicated earlier, the gospels are regarded as the best historical testimony to Jesus’ life; therefore, the fact that they do not record Jesus having a brother named Matthew is a major problem. Just moments ago, the film states that the tomb attests to the gospel account. Now, they stretch the gospel to support their conclusions. Sherlock Holmes stated that conclusions must support facts, facts cannot be twisted to support conclusions. It seems clear that this documentary is not sticking to the facts that are presented.

I don’t know if everyone reads the comments section, so I wanted to call attention to an excellent reader comment that expounds upon my analysis of the DNA sample in the last post. A reader calling himself Aelli had this to say:

Can I just add a little about the DNA sample? It really should be thrown out of the project completely and can have no bearing at all upon any results obtained. The reasons are this:
     aDNA is notoriously difficult to obtain due to degradation and the strong likelihood of contamination with other DNA in the environment. DNA literally floats in the air around us and is the reason for strict sterilisation controls in university human DNA sample labs.

     There is absolutely no way of knowing if the DNA samples tested were actually those of whoever was named on the ossuary or not as, firstly, the tomb is known to have housed about 18 individuals (possibly as many as 35) raising the prospect of the ossuaries being re-used. Additionally, the DNA samples might even be of the person/s who placed the bones in the ossuaries in the first place. There is no way of being sure about this either way, without other samples to compare, and of course this is impossible.

     Additionally, since the tomb was opened in 1980 it has been subject to repeated contamination from the environment and the number of people who have all handled the ossuaries. We must be looking at least at several dozen people over the past 25 years or so, and again, the DNA sample could be that of anyone of those people.

     Even if we could, by some most enormous stretch of the imagination, be sure that the samples were those of the two people named on the ossuaries, we again run into difficulties. They should have been tested against the DNA of all the other ossuaries in order to examine every possibly relationship permutation, the better to arrive at an honest and scientifically valid set of data. We know from a quote by Jacobovici that the only reason they didn’t do this is simply because they couldn’t be bothered to, not because it wasn’t possible.

     As such, the DNA results obtained can have no bearing on any of this, and deserve to be thrown away. Scientifically they are completely invalid.

Very well said, and I couldn’t agree more! I will say it one more time: DNA, in this case, is completely irrelevant. Anyone who says otherwise is completely unaware of the limitations of DNA analysis.

For more on this topic, James White has exchanged e-mails with Dr. Carney Matheson, the scientist who conducted the DNA test for Jacobvici. Read Dr. Matheson’s response to White here. It is very enlightening!

Okay, looking over my last post, I realized that I spent more time berating Christians for poor treatment of non-Christians as well as for lack of basic skill in apologetics than I actually spent answering the specific charges that David Boles presented in his blog post here. So that is what I will do with this post.

As I previously stated, Mr. Boles has an overall tone of vindication, as if this discovery somehow kills Christianity. His lead not only reveals his position, but presupposes the conclusion: “Big news was broken yesterday: Jesus and his family have been founded [sic] dead in their graves in Israel.” This statement is very true. A man named Jesus was found dead in his grave with his family. That does not mean that this is the Lord Jesus, which is (of course) what Mr. Boles is aiming to say, especially in light of the distasteful graphic on his page.

Presupposing that this is the Lord Jesus, Mr. Boles asks the question of how to “translate God,” which I think means how are Christians going to define God in light of this new discovery. Boles’s opinion of God is thus: Read more »

David Boles is the webmaster of a blog entitled Urban Semiotic, which “was founded to address tender questions of human living and rougher matters rotting the urban core.” I have no problem with Boles, his blog, his opinions, or anything of the sort. The comments policy on his site states, several times, that not all comments will be published. Based on the feedback I’ve been receiving from a few readers of this blog, I have no doubt that anything I submit will not be published either. Therfore, I wish to respond to this article, titled “Jesus Found Dead in His Grave” right here so that I will not risk deletion.

Overall, the tone of the article is of someone who is vindicated. At last, we can rest easy since the tomb of Jesus has been found. There was no Ressurection. Now religion can die in peace and we’ll never have to hear from it again. The grotesque picture of Christ is more than enough evidence of that.

His standpoint is evident by the use of the term “Jesus myth” following the lengthy quote that summarizes the Jesus Tomb controversy. I have no intention of restating that here; for a big picture analysis check out the Time Magazine blog on the subject.

I doubt Boles is an actual “Christ myther,” as the adherents to the school of thought that Jesus Christ was never a real, historical person are dubbed by the Tektonics group. Here, I think that Boles simply means that Jesus’ ministry is a modern myth, the way that pantheon of Greek gods is regarded today. In fact, our beliefs about Jesus are called “myth” a few times within the article. This cements for me that Boles does not believe that the stories told in the gospels are true, but a later “mythology” developed by zealous followers.

It should be noted that the discovery of Jesus’ “body” in a tomb is not the “process of shattering of the Jesus myth into Atheism [sic],” but would only serve to bolster alternate positions of how the Ascention occured. The orthodox position is that Jesus ascended body and soul into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. However, there is a school of thought that says only His soul was assumed into heaven.

I am, of course, getting ahead of the issue. There is still no reliable evidence that indicates this tomb is the tomb of Christ and His family. Boles does not appear to be a theologian nor does he have any interest in bolstering either side of that argument. His naive statement betrays that he has no idea other school of thoughts on that matter even exist. The real issue is stated here:

I understand this revolt against the sanctity of the core of Christianity is a direct response to the rise of Christian Fundamentalism in America where Believers now force their myths into mandatory mainstream acceptance: “If you don’t Believe, you’re sinner; if you don’t Repent, you’re going into the fires of hell.”

     The Fundamentalists achieve that punctilious end by poisoning the Political process with their harsh and unloving beliefs and the rest of America — the unmoved middle class who prefer soccer to sacrilege — go along with the movements of the breeze as long as it doesn’t adversely affect their lifestyle.

     With the Far Right Fundamentalists pressing their agenda into Iraq and Iran and even here on the Homeland in the Supreme Court and in the villages and the valleys, the middle class are beginning to see their precious personal rights are winnowing away in the sweaty palms of those who believe in blood and nails and those who worship the implements of death like crucifixes and spears — instead of loving each other just enough to leave people alone.

     If the myth is unwillingly perpetuated into popular culture by the True Believers — sooner or later people, good people, will rise up and fight back for the right to be left alone and to think as they wish and not as others command them to think.

     One of the weapons the mighty ordinary wield against the Myths of the Believers is the scientific process.

Yes, the real issue is that conservatives have control of government, and are attempting to impose morality upon the masses of people. We desire people to live as the Bible commands, as our Creator desires we live. However, that is not how Western culture teaches a person to behave. Here in the United States, people are taught to think for themselves, not to let anyone push them around, and anyone who wants you to behave as part of a collective whole is automatically wrong and you must fight them. It is all about individualism.

The supreme popularity of websites like MySpace is just more evidence of this. With MySpace, a person creates and personaizes a page that is all about him or herself. Is this not the pinnacle of vanity and self-asorbtion? Read more »

I knew that the Jesus Tomb controversy would eventually be a featured blog on WordPress. But I never figured that this would be the featured blog. Urban Semiotic seems unspeakably happy that this discovery has been made, and seems to hope that this will kill the “delusion” of Christianity. Mr. Boles makes that perfectly clear in this statement:

What does this discovery mean for the religious myths that bind us and for the sustenance of the Resurrection ideal to Christians across the world? How does one now translate God?

     Without the Resurrection, doesn’t Christianity become an empty vessel?

And:

This challenge to the Jesus Resurrection will prove interesting as science and technology become even more powerful and infallible. Carbon Dating is hard to render into belief but it easily shatters myths. DNA does not lie or require Blind Faith to be believed.

Perhaps the most telling statement, and the most relevent to my stated mission of helping the science-minded come to faith, is “One of the weapons the mighty ordinary wield against the Myths of the Believers is the scientific process.” Boles insinuates that science will triumph over religion, that deluded Christ-followers like me must inevitably surrender to mounting scientific evidence that we chase dreams and cling to a myth.

I would not be adverse to debating David Boles on that point. But that isn’t the point of this post. I’m not clubbing Boles for his opinion. He has his, I have mine. The point of this post is to club WordPress.

I should have known that no one is interested in reading a reasoned, Christian response to the Jesus Tomb story that is unfolding before us. Instead, they pick the response typical of the world. “Cool! Maybe this will finally be the death of Christiantity.” Of course, the title of the post says it all: Jesus found Dead in His Grave. I doubt that is just meant as a clever headline; it is likely the author’s opinion. Reading the comments section only solidifies that charge.

And it doesn’t help matters when a person calling him/herself “teenfg” posts responses that typify the type of Christian that Mr. Boles rants about:

I understand this revolt against the sanctity of the core of Christianity is a direct response to the rise of Christian Fundamentalism in America where Believers now force their myths into mandatory mainstream acceptance: “If you don’t Believe, you’re sinner; if you don’t Repent, you’re going into the fires of hell.”

Teen’s response oddly mirrors the quote above:

Please do not make assumptions! Once again believe what you want to but Jesus has risen from the dead! The Bible is truth do not question it!!! We disagree with almost EVERYTHING that the Davinci Code says.

Best of all, there is no substance to the argument. I believe in biblical inerrancy, that Jesus rose from the dead, and I disagree with the Da Vinci Code. But I have reasoned responses to each of those topics bred from actual research. I can point to little things like the proper use of titles in Luke that other first century historians got wrong, to the fact that Luke misses not a single village or obscure island in his discussions about geography, that the walls of Jericho fell outward based on the data found at the site, that cultures around Egypt report similar “plagues” and a giant volcanic eruption near the time of the Exodus, that the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah were scorched by fire, fulfillment of prophecy–the list goes on–when I speak of biblical inerrancy. I can demonstrate from Paul’s writings that the first followers of Jesus believed Him divine, despite what the Da Vinci Code wants to claim.

I’m probably being to harsh with Teen. He is, according to his site, only 13. The problem is, he is trying to argue with a professional writer, obvious atheist, and credentialed academic in David Boles, and that might perhaps be a little out of Teen’s league.

I guess it boils down to this essay, which convicted me to start this ministry in the first place. Why are our brothers and sisters in Christ not given at least a basic education in apologetics, something that the Bible commands us to do?

Dee Dee Smith personifies what I’m talking about with this comment:

Any “scientific” information found would not at all affect my choice to believe. As I stated earlier, faith is definitely a choice. If it were based upon scientific findings, I’d be tossed like a ship in the wind - believing today, and not believing tomorrow. Some might consider this to be naivity, and I can understand that thought. Faith in Christ is not something that can be understood intellectually. . . . For me . . . , it’s a knowing and it’s a changed life that makes me sure of what I know.

Dee Dee apparently just blindly believes in Christ without a real reason, and filters out anything that contradicts what she has already decided is true. That isn’t faith, that’s narrowmindedness. The Bible is truth, but Dee Dee still subscribes to the Scientology definition of that word, which is that one defines one’s own truth. She has defined Christianity as true, and a statement that contradicts this worldview is automatically false. Nevermind careful research or refutation. No reasoned argument necessary.

Speaking of Scientology, John Travolta is making news by saying that Scientology’s program Narconon could have saved Anna Nicole Smith’s life. Here we have a perfect example of the marketing prowess of that religion. It irritates me that they have picked a rather sad case to use as a backdrop for their brand of “medicine.”

I can only pray that God will bless the world with more discernment.

As promised, here is the link to James White’s Dividing Line program on the Jesus Tomb (free/high quality).

White plans to write an apologetic book for the tomb.  I had planned to do this as well, distributing it as e-book.  White plans to have his out “as soon as possible,” which is the same ultra-specific timeframe I will give.  More updates on that later.

And this is a link to a blog with more resources on answering the questions raised by the tomb.

One last item on this wonderful Jesus Tomb fiascoe, and then I will go to bed since it is late and I am tired.

CARM supplied some new data for me, that I think it is interesting to note for this discussion.  First, tombs were used for several generations in Jewish custom.  That means that these bodies are not necessairly representative of only one generation of this family, and they may have lived many years apart.  Second, this tomb has been disturbed and vandalized prior to modern discovery.  What may have been altered, defaced, or destroyed?  We may never know.

Finally, this article was linked to by CARM, and it backs up my wife’s theory (albeit in a different way).  My wife says that the name “Yeshua” also translates as “Joshua,” and therefore supposes that the person in the tomb may have been named Joshua, not Jesus. Jody is in good company with this theory of a misread name.  Stephen Pfann,  a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, doesn’t think that the inscription says “Jesus.”  He thinks it says “Hanun.”

James Cameron certainly is getting his debate. Here are some quotes from around the news world on the so-called Jesus Tomb:

Let me just throw this out there for you. If it were something that was attacking another religion, because there’s this idea out there that Christianity is sort of, it’s fine, you know, you can try to debunk anything out there, but if you tried to do this to the Muslim religion or perhaps the Jewish religion there would be an outcry of huge proportions. [Martha MacCallum during a roundtable discussion on The Live Desk, source]

That reflects what my wife and I have discussed about Christianity for as long as I can remember: It’s okay to bash Christianity, but if you try to bash another religion, there are all kinds of consequences and lawsuits and stuff.

One person sums up the DNA evidence nicely:

Except the whole thing seems kind of pointless. DNA comparison only works if you have something to compare the bones to. Last I checked, no one had a Jesus hair follicle in their bathroom hair brush. Sure, someone might claim to have DNA that definitely belonged to the Christ, but there’s no way to prove it. And without absolutely proof positive Jesus DNA to compare those bones to, I don’t see how Cameron can prove anything. [source]

Again, Amos Kloner, the tomb’s discoverer, has had this to say:

“I’m a scholar. I do scholarly work which has nothing to do with documentary film-making. There’s no way to take a religious story and to turn it into something scientific,” he told AFP in a telephone interview.

     ”I still insist that it is a regular burial chamber from the 1st century BC,” Kloner said, adding that the names were a coincidence.

     ”Who says that ‘Maria’ is Magdalena and ‘Judah’ is the son of Jesus? It cannot be proved. These are very popular and common names from the 1st century BC,” said the academic at Israel’s Bar Ilan University.

     Kloner said that of 900 burial caves found within four kilometres (two and a half miles) of Jerusalem’s Old City and from the same era, the name Jesus or Yeshu was found 71 times, and that “Jesus son of Joseph” had also been found. [source, emphasis added]

The Israeli Antiques Authority made no comment on the press conference, “although in 1996 a spokesman said that the probability of the caskets belonging to the family of Jesus were ‘next to zero’” (ibid.).

Tim McGirk, who reported on the story for Time Magazine, says of Jesus: “His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn’t afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names” [source].

Finally, I repeat the words of National Clergy Council President Robert Schenck:

“Today, Hollywood director James Cameron, whose claim to fame is a fictionalized account of the sinking of the Titanic, unveiled a documentary claiming a coffin found in Jerusalem 27 years ago once contained the remains of Jesus Christ. Cameron employed archaeologists and DNA experts to bolster his assertion Jesus was buried along with his mother Mary, Mary Magdalene and a supposed son, Judah.

     ”Over the years, Hollywood has attacked and mocked Christianity, providing only negative portrayals of people of faith. It has produced films that undermine moral culture. Hollywood’s production of ‘The Da Vinci Code’ sensationalized a conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church engaged in a cover up of the real story of Jesus operating in the manner of a crime syndicate.

     ”According to Cameron, his film is no mere speculation, but historical fact. By claiming the remains of Jesus returned to dust along with other members of his family, the Hollywood filmmaker is denying the divinity of the Son of God and his victory over death. Cameron clearly intended to drive a stake into the heart of Christianity, since without the Resurrection, Jesus was only a mortal man.

     ”Media outlets should exercise restraint in reporting Cameron’s Hollywood fiction masquerading as scientific fact. All of Jesus’ contemporaries recorded Christ rose after being dead for three days and ascended into Heaven. For 2,000 years people of faith along and countless scholars have pored over the Scriptures, confirming their veracity. A Hollywood director is the least qualified to render any determination of Biblical truth. Not only so, but the people Mr. Cameron has partnered with completely lack credibility. One has been discredited by experts as a charlatan. This is nothing more than a modern day circus sideshow. At best it is pure presumption. At worst, it is pure chicanery.” [source]

It will be very interesting to see what will become of this story. I urge my readers to listen to James White’s podcast, The Dividing Line, Tuesday 2/27/07 at 11:00am Moutain Standard Time (for us Eastern Daylight Timers, that would be 1:00pm). If you can’t make the live broadcast, check out the link to it, which I will post later. You can also find it by clicking on the Alpha and Omega Ministries link on the left side of this page.

Limitations exist in any sort of statistical analysis. I find it unbelieveable that these so-called experts would even use statistics in their analysis of the Jesus tomb, since statistics can generally be made to say whatever you want them to say. This isn’t news; anyone who has taken an introduction to statistics can tell you that.

The “conservative” estimate that the tomb is anyone else’s other than Jesus’ family is 1 in 600. How did Cameron and his film crew arrive at this number? Well, they started with a set of assumptions and followed a logical thread.

First, they assumed that Jesus Son of Joseph would occur in 1 of 190 folks, Mariamne in 1 of 160 cases, Matia (Matthew) in 1 of 40 cases, Yose in 1 of 20 cases, and Maria in 1 of 4 cases. I really can’t find out how they got these initial numbers.

After calculating the odds of all of those names being found together, they divided the number by 4 to remove the chance of intentional bias. Then, they divided the result by 1,000 to adjust for all possible first century tombs, which yields a result of 1 in 600 chances that this is someone else’s tomb.

One thing got me: J.P. Holding is very well versed in the culture of first century Palestine. So, for right now, let’s trust his statement regarding the names inscribed on the ossuraries:

The names in question were outrageously common: Mary was the name of a fourth to a third of all Jewish women. Joseph and Jesus were Top Ten names. Apparently the people happy about this have forgotten how this was used as an argument against the “James ossuary”. (Claims of statistical analysis based on ossuary inscriptions alone won’t do anything to increase the odds….since the vast majority of people would have been too poor to have ossuaries.) [source]

These are very different numbers than the ones the filmmakers used. If a person were to use these figures as starting point, working with just those four names, and then use the same formula described above, the odds become 1 in 4. This bears repeating: to have two Marys, a Joseph, and a Jesus buried together in first century Palestine would occur one in four times. One-fourth of all first century tombs would bear those four names! In fact, here’s a better and much more detailed example.

Skeptics may argue that I haven’t proved anything. And I want them to argue that, because it follows that if my statistical analysis didn’t prove anything, than the filmmakers’ analysis didn’t prove anything either.